TLDR version: expect more of the past three years for as long as this coterie of managers is in power.
Figures it has been this way for a long time, and opinions on the degree to which other programs are similar (on a program-by-program basis) or even much worse are going to vary among people, but it should be said and repeated often that our apparatus is full of people who should not be trusted to perform their jobs in a manner which ultimately serves Cal football's interests.
It doesn't start with Sandy Barbour and the stadium debacle, nor does it end there, but the management of the stadium project has been awful from the start. The lies that were told about the funding model were all about producing a fait accompli and sticking the university/UC system/state with the bill. This fraud was propagated by that careerist Barbour and her athletic department administration, abetted by some non-AD employed individuals with either official or unofficial influence (including some at Haas), and tacitly sanctioned by a loud multitude of Cal fans who adopted knee-jerk phobia to expressions of cautionary or disapproving opinion. Central to the fraud was the farcical idea that the ESP would certainly serve as the center column of a sound business plan.
The next big lie is the excessive concern for the academic state of the football program. If you have a Pac-12 football program, you have already made a faustian bargain. At this level, a football program can only sustain itself through successful competition on the field. Compelling your FB program to place exceptional academic performance (relative to FB competitors) at the top of their performance based evaluation will very likely lend itself to one of two eventual outcomes: success in the classroom paired with failure on the field, or failure everywhere. Maybe this is okay if you're ready to give up big time FB as the Ivys did, or if your program is small time to begin with, like countless fine Div II and III schools. This is a very bad idea if you are trying to compete for Pac-12 championships (unless like Stanford you have incredibly deep pockets). Given the kind of investment a Pac-12 football program represents, this conflation of ideals in Cal's FB objectives is a terrible idea and a clear sign that the aims of the program have been hijacked by people who want to put at the top spot (below an implied level of nominal academic and character performance, which all Pac-12 programs try hard to maintain) something not related to the competitive health of the program.
That's all besides the almost endless succession of terrible business/personnel management decisions committed over the past decade. The extension to Tedford after the Emerald Bowl, the Tosh fiasco (Tosh is scum, but Cal played its customary brand of manure poker), the corporate/industrial coaching search that landed us with the epitome of mediocrities in Sonny Dykes, the academic collapse of the football program (astounding considering the level of oversight that existed even in the late years of the Tedford regime...blame JT if you like, but it's not like the performance was a secret to responsible parties in the AD), the hiring of several coaches of questionable quality in Dykes' inaugural year (I will never understand the decision to hire Buh and give him that absurd contract), the terrible extension just given to Dykes for what has been dismal productivity on the field (but as we all know, a team full of admirable bookworms). Etc.
Now when Dirks was hired, he made all the right noises with regards to football. But this is not an athletics guy, this is a career academic guy who comes to the chancellorship after 40 years in academia. The idea that this guy was going to be sympathetic to what should be (and very recently was) the top priority of the FB program (getting back to the Rose Bowl for the first time since Eisenhower) was always ludicrous. Of course, he has much bigger responsibilities on his plate than that, but that is not the point. I want both UC Berkeley to be a great university, and for Cal football to finally get to the promised land. Though the priorities run in that order, the latter deserves to be mentioned with the former to me because I love Cal football. I know that the latter does not get mentioned as any kind of priority (major, minor or tertiary) at all in hard-core academic circles. Point being, expect no help from Dirk's quarter, and perhaps expect some eventualities that are less than helpful. Like, for example, his selection of H.M. Williams as permanent AD. He picked a guy who has no athletic administration experience, but not surprisingly does have a lot of experience as a corporate manager/director and as an officer in university related non-profit orgs. Sounds to me like a guy that Dirks can rely on to do the two things I expect he cares most about: manage AD costs within expectations and toe an appropriate ideological line.
None of this is really new for Cal. It seems to be almost cyclical. The FB program was marginalized by the academic establishment in the 60s through the 80s too. But that is a cause for terrible concern if you are a passionate Cal football fan, because those decades were largely terrible for Cal football. That's where we're headed again, only this time it will be worse. The Cal football program has always had a survivor's spirit, and was succored in its quest to survive by its own spirit and traditions. Unfortunately the current administration has chipped away at that too, through the program of generic culture that has very swiftly captured the business/marketing/entertainment bureaus within the AD. Hence the reduced band, increased advertisements/promotions, increase in neutral venue games (and we have this $325m new stadium...idiots), arbitrary game times (ruled by television/marketing), game dates (remember when the Big Game used to be on the same week for generations?), etc, etc.
End of rant.
Figures it has been this way for a long time, and opinions on the degree to which other programs are similar (on a program-by-program basis) or even much worse are going to vary among people, but it should be said and repeated often that our apparatus is full of people who should not be trusted to perform their jobs in a manner which ultimately serves Cal football's interests.
It doesn't start with Sandy Barbour and the stadium debacle, nor does it end there, but the management of the stadium project has been awful from the start. The lies that were told about the funding model were all about producing a fait accompli and sticking the university/UC system/state with the bill. This fraud was propagated by that careerist Barbour and her athletic department administration, abetted by some non-AD employed individuals with either official or unofficial influence (including some at Haas), and tacitly sanctioned by a loud multitude of Cal fans who adopted knee-jerk phobia to expressions of cautionary or disapproving opinion. Central to the fraud was the farcical idea that the ESP would certainly serve as the center column of a sound business plan.
The next big lie is the excessive concern for the academic state of the football program. If you have a Pac-12 football program, you have already made a faustian bargain. At this level, a football program can only sustain itself through successful competition on the field. Compelling your FB program to place exceptional academic performance (relative to FB competitors) at the top of their performance based evaluation will very likely lend itself to one of two eventual outcomes: success in the classroom paired with failure on the field, or failure everywhere. Maybe this is okay if you're ready to give up big time FB as the Ivys did, or if your program is small time to begin with, like countless fine Div II and III schools. This is a very bad idea if you are trying to compete for Pac-12 championships (unless like Stanford you have incredibly deep pockets). Given the kind of investment a Pac-12 football program represents, this conflation of ideals in Cal's FB objectives is a terrible idea and a clear sign that the aims of the program have been hijacked by people who want to put at the top spot (below an implied level of nominal academic and character performance, which all Pac-12 programs try hard to maintain) something not related to the competitive health of the program.
That's all besides the almost endless succession of terrible business/personnel management decisions committed over the past decade. The extension to Tedford after the Emerald Bowl, the Tosh fiasco (Tosh is scum, but Cal played its customary brand of manure poker), the corporate/industrial coaching search that landed us with the epitome of mediocrities in Sonny Dykes, the academic collapse of the football program (astounding considering the level of oversight that existed even in the late years of the Tedford regime...blame JT if you like, but it's not like the performance was a secret to responsible parties in the AD), the hiring of several coaches of questionable quality in Dykes' inaugural year (I will never understand the decision to hire Buh and give him that absurd contract), the terrible extension just given to Dykes for what has been dismal productivity on the field (but as we all know, a team full of admirable bookworms). Etc.
Now when Dirks was hired, he made all the right noises with regards to football. But this is not an athletics guy, this is a career academic guy who comes to the chancellorship after 40 years in academia. The idea that this guy was going to be sympathetic to what should be (and very recently was) the top priority of the FB program (getting back to the Rose Bowl for the first time since Eisenhower) was always ludicrous. Of course, he has much bigger responsibilities on his plate than that, but that is not the point. I want both UC Berkeley to be a great university, and for Cal football to finally get to the promised land. Though the priorities run in that order, the latter deserves to be mentioned with the former to me because I love Cal football. I know that the latter does not get mentioned as any kind of priority (major, minor or tertiary) at all in hard-core academic circles. Point being, expect no help from Dirk's quarter, and perhaps expect some eventualities that are less than helpful. Like, for example, his selection of H.M. Williams as permanent AD. He picked a guy who has no athletic administration experience, but not surprisingly does have a lot of experience as a corporate manager/director and as an officer in university related non-profit orgs. Sounds to me like a guy that Dirks can rely on to do the two things I expect he cares most about: manage AD costs within expectations and toe an appropriate ideological line.
None of this is really new for Cal. It seems to be almost cyclical. The FB program was marginalized by the academic establishment in the 60s through the 80s too. But that is a cause for terrible concern if you are a passionate Cal football fan, because those decades were largely terrible for Cal football. That's where we're headed again, only this time it will be worse. The Cal football program has always had a survivor's spirit, and was succored in its quest to survive by its own spirit and traditions. Unfortunately the current administration has chipped away at that too, through the program of generic culture that has very swiftly captured the business/marketing/entertainment bureaus within the AD. Hence the reduced band, increased advertisements/promotions, increase in neutral venue games (and we have this $325m new stadium...idiots), arbitrary game times (ruled by television/marketing), game dates (remember when the Big Game used to be on the same week for generations?), etc, etc.
End of rant.
Last edited:
